Jump to content

SafetyDad

Gold Member
  • Posts

    1,198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SafetyDad

  1. Not an awful lot to add to what has already been said. My library focuses more upon later war variants, but I've had a peek at a couple of references. The vast majority of photos I've found of Bf109Es show the spinner with the aperture - only the E-7 seems to have a spinner cap fitted routinely. There are some oddities - Hitchcock's 109 Gallery has a shot of an E-5 in France with what appears to be an ad hoc pointed spinner cap in place. I would back up what has already been said about the engine mounted cannon - it was proposed, fitted to very early airframes, troublesome and abandoned. Hitchcock states that the 109C-2 did have the engine mounted cannon, indeed this variant was produced as an experimental version specifically to evaluate the installation. The following C-3 mounted MG FFs in the wings; presumably this allowed a direct comparison between the differing armament fits and resulted in wing-mounted cannon being preferred (although not fitted routinely until much later marks)? Hitchcock also describes the 109E-2 as a 'very limited production version' fitted with the engine mounted MG FF and used operationally by II./27 in August 1940. He also notes the installation was troublesome. Were any of these brought down over the British Isles during the Battle of Britain? And could this be the source of the persistent belief that this cannon fit was universal? I'm aware that the Messerschmitt 'O Nine' Gallery dates from 1973(!), and that much has been published since. In my work as an Academic I would raised an eyebrow at the use of 50 year old reference material by students, so please view this posting accordingly. Finally, a little speculation. It's possible that the spinner aperture was retained to improve engine cooling; later G models had scoops added to enhance spark plug cooling. Cooling air between the cylinder banks might have been found to be desirable in a close-cowled installation like this? SD
  2. I must be honest - you've got me thinking here. Like many, I have accepted the idea that the read gear legs were there to remind ground crew that this airframe required special fuel. However, I can't ever recall any publication linking this idea with an RLM directive or instruction. I understand that this painting of the gear could have been evolved informally, but it seems very likely that it was not restricted to a single unit or airfield - the evidence (such as it is - I tip my hat to @WrathofAtlantis here) does seem to support this practice being uncommon, but not localised. I think these might be red too, but being monochrome, not as obvious. You decide. Courtesy Marc-Andre Haldimann Flickr account @FalkeEins has a page on these non-standard Bf109s on his blog here with bigger and better pictures https://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2013/05/messerschmitt-bf-109-g-10-of-5njg-11.html Here's the Croation 109 in monochrome as a comparison SD
  3. Back to Bf109s with red legs I found this looking for pics of the well-known Croatian 109 defector I think those legs are red... SD
  4. This aircraft is well photographed, including in colour. Not wonderful, as the colour has shifted a lot, but worth a look And are those RED gear legs as well? Thinking of the other thread running here at the mo' SD
  5. Thanks Jochen - I wasn't convinced they were the same colour SD
  6. Is this the same? Source: As here So, some metal components painted in red primer, but not those exposed to external viewing? HTH SD
  7. I thought the red primer (Minium?) was intended solely for wood parts? SD
  8. This was discussed quite recently @dov you were a contributor to this thread! It starts exploring differing shades of grey and green, then moves on to red. Worth a read. I was impressed with @Kari Lumppio's suggestion that red gear legs may be linked to red-dyed Analine fuel. HTH SD
  9. Merlin? I've not seen their Spitfire, but this is their Junkers Ju 287 I suppose it depends how much work you're prepared for? This will need more than @Ed Russell and his sander! SD
  10. When I first saw your profile I agreed with your view that the mottling might be a little overdone. However, when I scrolled down to the picture I think you have conveyed the overall appearance of the aircraft very well - it's not blotch for blotch as you say, but certainly represents the aircraft well. Blotch for blotch? What I am I thinking? This is 1/144! SD
  11. This sounds like @G.R.Morrison or @MDriskill might be able to help? Meanwhile, I'll see what I have SD
  12. Hi Jerry I tried sending this as a PM after I saw your request and I think I can get you pretty close. Unfortunately I'm getting a message from BM that you can't receive PMs? So here we go. Cutting Edge did blue numbers in 48th - I have their sheet But the outlines are white. Never mind, because their Brown numerals sheet has black outlines, and what appears to be identical artwork So blue numbers + these outlines gets you to 'Blue 14'. I think a number 7 cut up and adjusted will get you the insignia behind the cross? Then for the details, there's this MSAP sheet, originally for his 109F Only problem - reduced number of ships and no Wk Nr. Unfortunately, the two sheets use differing colour blue, so adding a 4 from the Cutting Edge sheet to the 1 of the sheet above doesn't work. Happy to remove these for you from my decal store and ship across the pond free of charge Please let me know SD
  13. Coda: I came across this https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/avro-lancaster-b-mk-i-w4964-ws-j-johnnie-walker-no-9-sqn-raf-hkm-1-48.60528/ which suggests that all the information you'll need is in Gordon Thorburn's 'biography' of this Lancaster. Sadly it seems from the posts that the JW artwork may have been painted on after her 102nd raid when she was carrying a Tallboy. I don't have this volume, so can't be sure SD
  14. According to the recent Wingleader Photo Archive 5 W4964 left the factory on April 12 1943. Completed as a MK 1. It seems she took part in the Tallboy operations against the Tirpitz on her 100th mission. The conversion for that included adding the taller astrodome and bigger bomb aimers blister https://iwmvolunteerlondon.wordpress.com/2019/09/11/when-johnnie-came-home-lancaster-ws-j-w4964-more-than-100-operations-to-its-credit/ The original configuration would have included faired windscreen washers and relocated pitot head under the port wing. Small blister, needle props. The $64K question as I understand you asked it is 'Did she serve as JW in the standard Lancaster configuration, complete with nose art?'. As I read the references the answer would seem to be 'Most Likely'. The Wingleader books don't give the precise dates for the conversion to B1 (Special), but the Tirpitz raid was 18 months after W4964 was initially delivered. Seems more likely that she received her nose art in this period than was painted up after the 100th op, but it's possible (especially given the 'Still Going Strong' phrase'. The well-known pic of her nose art, taken from the portside front, shows 104 ops, so doesn't help. I'll have another look to see if I have more - others here are likely to know. SD
  15. First time I've ever contemplated posting a build online, but this is hard to resist! Please can you add me to the list as well? SD
  16. I've just found this thread and had a thoroughly enjoyable hour reading up to this point. Excellent and inspiring stuff there Bill, plus some very helpful modelling tips and tricks. Very impressed SD
  17. This is from memory, but I think I’m correct in saying that the torpedo carrying prototype was described as very challenging and unpleasant to fly when fully loaded. SD
  18. I imagine that @Troy Smith is your man here…. SD
  19. There we are! Pics posted purely for discussion. Source: Monogram Close Up Fw190F. I think Graham is right about torpedo bombing - trying to create an agile torpedo carrying aircraft is an oxymoron really. That didn’t stop the British, Germans or Italians pursuing the idea. However the BT Bomben were an elegant solution to some of the problems. They were much lighter, simpler and cheaper than torpedoes, and apparently quite effective in tests. The Luftwaffe (and KG200 especially) were tasked with repelling invasion, hence the pursuit of this concept. KG200 used Mistel combination aircraft off the Normandy coast in small numbers in 1944. SD
  20. There was a thread here recently on this. I’m replying here on an iPhone in France, so not so easy to search. The Monogram Close-up on the Fw190F has some pics of examples- a truly awful quality in-flight shot and better pictures of a captured example from KG200 at war’s end. Standard tail and extended tail wheel strut on the captured aircraft- the other picture is so fuzzy it’s hard to see. You can find BT bombs in 1/48 in the Trimaster Fw 190D12 boxes. SD
  21. This idea makes a lot of sense to me. Although we enthusiasts of late war colours are aware of the RLM edict to use up existing paint, it seems relatively few late war photos are captioned as a mix of old and new colours. Only the He 162 and Do 335 appear to be widely recognised as being finished in this way. Personally I wonder if the practice was more widespread than generally realised? Dark Green 71, Braunviolet 81 and Grass Green 82 seems more logical than ‘multiple shades of green with the same RLM number’ . Although as a footnote I can understand the argument that Braunviolet could be a sort of ‘Luftwaffe Olive Drab’ prone to pronounced colour shift over time when exposed to sunlight. SD
  22. Thanks @Troy Smith I'm still in France, so away from my references. You’ve offered a neat lead-in to late war colours and the challenges these present. That G-10 picture is thought provoking, with the blue under cowl and grey camouflage. The Australian 109G6 at Bankstown has traces of a similar colour on the cowling bulges - this machine is in original camouflage with hardly a panel painted in ‘recognised’ late war colours, capably supporting Michael Ullmans comments above on the drive to use up everything at wars end. For what it’s worth, I’d opt for Blue 12 over Black, although I accept @Werdna’s view that paint lustre might just account for the difference in tone noted in monochrome photos. I’d also opt for Light Grey 77 as part of the wing camouflage. Proposing 77 as an upper wing colour for late war Luftwaffe aircraft has caused disagreement here before. However there’s ample photographic evidence of the use of light grey upper wing colours on Blue/Black 12 and other 190Ds, including the aircraft surrendered at Furth, and photographed in colour on the scrap heap there. Merrick offers an intriguing hypothesis about this colour, suggesting that 77 was much more than simply a colour for codes - he proposes that as this grey was allocated an RLM number in the sequence used for camouflage colours, ie 70 to 82, as opposed to colours used simply for codes and bands, it must have been intended for camouflage use. HTH SD
  23. @Tail-Dragon That’s a helpful link there- thanks! SD
  24. Sadly I’ve no references to hand, so I’m posting this from memory- perhaps not wise. 😳 With that proviso, I can’t recall any mention of operational use of the Ju288. Like you, I thought this project was abandoned as a consequence of the engine problems and the demise of the Bomber B program. I wonder if the article you refer to is a typo for the Ju388? SD
×
×
  • Create New...